for me, i only have 5 gallon carboys. so i ferment in ale pails, then after 7-10 days transfer to carboy for the duration until kegged. people talk about buckets not being permeable to oxygen, but old wives tale or not.. i KNOW glass is and will last as long as all my stainless equipment, as i handle it correctly to assure safety. now if i ever get 6 gal bb's, ill leave it in (ill trust pete up to 6 mos oxygen free) until keg time.

What about all of the oxygen exposure from the transfer? I know it can be done with very minimal exposure, but most brewers are going to get more oxygen exposure from the transfer than they will through the bucket for 3 weeks.

Improves compared to what? Keeping in the primary for 1 week (as opposed to 2-3 weeks) and then bottling\kegging? I asked that in my other post and never got an answer. In that little JP quote it doesnt refer to the secondary at all! Obviously if you are not using a secondary, letting it set 2-3 weeks instead of 1 week will improve a beer...maybe that's what JP was referring to.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone or their methods as I have not done any tests myself...

__________________"So we were slammin' beers in the church parking lot..."

What about all of the oxygen exposure from the transfer? I know it can be done with very minimal exposure, but most brewers are going to get more oxygen exposure from the transfer than they will through the bucket for 3 weeks.

If everything is sanitary you have little to worry about racking to a secondary fermenter after primary fermentation has settled some. The best way is to transfer while there is still some fermentation going on. The beer has alcohol and some co2 in the head space.

Getting it off the trub and letting it sit and finish up on the cleaner yeast sediment is better then sitting in the break fats for extended periods.

Keeping the tubing in the bottom corner and not splashing the siphoning wort, will keep it from oxygen.

I flood the bottom of the secondary with co2 from my tank before racking. Just need a little.

Improves compared to what? Keeping in the primary for 1 week (as opposed to 2-3 weeks) and then bottling\kegging? I asked that in my other post and never got an answer. In that little JP quote it doesnt refer to the secondary at all! Obviously if you are not using a secondary, letting it set 2-3 weeks instead of 1 week will improve a beer...maybe that's what JP was referring to.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone or their methods as I have not done any tests myself...

Exactly.. He is comparing the leaving it for a couple to three weeks with leaving it for 1 week then bottling.

He is not comparing primary fermention then secondary fermention, to just primary then bottle.

Getting it off the trub and letting it sit and finish up on the cleaner yeast sediment is better then sitting in the break fats for extended periods.

Dude, you and SOB can believe what you want. You can harken back to your fear of the yeast days all you want. The thing is that's old school thinking. Like I said, we've been doing this for upwards of three years with great results. Including judging scores, and comments from BJCP judges. And heard all the armchair arguments from people just like you.

Often those same people end up being converts to it once they try.

Like I said, I'm not going debate it, I'm not gonna try to convert you. My brewing cajones won't get any bigger dueling with you guys, who are only now hearing about this stuff.

There's nothing you have said that hasn't been brought up when people first starting talking about it. And yet three years later, noone's had f'ed up beer from skipping secondary, noone's reported autolysis or off flavors or anything else you guys are so sure is/will be happening because we dared challenge the old way of thinking.......

If you really care as more that a bashing exercise, because it challenges something you hold sacred, then do a search and wade through the countless discussions about it....but I ain't into flame wars about it.

Because I've even said there's not a right way or a wrong way to do things, that using a secondary or doing a long primary both work. And like so much stuff in brewing, it's up to the brewer to decide what works best for THEIR OWN PROCESS.

And we're still gonna share the info with the noobs who ask about it, no matter what you may think, and believe.

So stay warm in your convictions, that this doesn't work, that it makes the beer worse....while I'll keep racking in the awards in bjcp contests, and keep getting comments from the judges, some of them the very "pros" you worship, which describe the appearance of my beers as "jewell like" and use words like "Crisp" and "Clean" to describe the taste.....that's all the proof I need that it works. The fact that my contests scores have gotten significantly higher since I started doing this.

Hell the very first contest where I entered multiple beers, and 50% of them were beers that I secondaried, the ones that I long primaried scored higher.

I have done over 300 gallons this way, everything from barleywines to light lagers, and in fact one of my awards this summer was for a lager that I had left in primary for a month, and then racked and lagered. And you would think if there were any issues with off flavors from a month in primary, you would think it would be there.

You can keep waxing about it til you're blue in the face about how it doesn't work......and we'll keep doing what we've been doing.

And watching as more and more of your "pros" and more and more of your podcast guests, and more and more authors, start to generate more buzz about it. Because if they are truly professionals then they will be more open minded to new things that MAY improve their beers, rather than clinging to old ways of doing things.

If they are truly professionals that is, and not egocentric posers....who would rather be "right" than be informed.

The OP asked for some information and I provided it, and I cleared up some misconcetion about the absolute NEED to cold crash in order to do long primaries.....like I said, I don't cold crash and my beer after a month is crystal clear.

So hopefully the OP has enough info to art least try one beer with a secondary, and one in long primary, and will then make HIS OWN DECISION.

*unsubscribe*

__________________
Like my snazzy new avatar? Get Sons of Zymurgy swag, here, and brew with the best.

Revvy's one of the cool reverends. He has a Harley and a t-shirt that says on the back "If you can read this, the bitch was Raptured. - Madman

I gotta tell ya, just between us girls, that Revvy is HOT. Very tall, gorgeous grey hair and a terrific smile. He's very good looking in person, with a charismatic personality... he drives like a ****ing maniac! - YooperBrew

I was never trying to argue with anyone and it didnt sound to me like anyone was trying to argue except for you Revvy...starting a reply with "WRONG WRONG WRONG" isn't the best way to have a nice chat about a topic!

I stated it before that I have not done enough of my own testing to tell whether it is better or not. I had a few questions with your logic so I raised a few points. TO EACH THEIR OWN! It looks like you and other have major success with no secondary and that's great. I like my methods, consistently get great results with no infections or problems, so I will stick to them. Like I said, I sometimes do not use a secondary but it depends on the style of beer.

OP, I hope these different points of view have helped!

__________________"So we were slammin' beers in the church parking lot..."

After reading this thread, I'm gonna try the extended primary fermentation. I've been racking into a carboy after 8-10 days cuz thats what they told me to do at my LHBS 2 years ago when I started. I wish I had read this thread a few days ago, I just racked my first AG batch to the secondary. Oh well, guess I have to brew again soon...darn!!!!